NLRC First Division affirms dismissal of complaint against GMA Network | GMANetwork.com - Corporate - Articles

The Commission said that complainant's multiple offenses constitute just causes for the termination of her employment.

NLRC First Division affirms dismissal of complaint against GMA Network

March 04 2016

The First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) favored GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) in an illegal dismissal complaint filed against the broadcast company.

In its decision promulgated on February 17, 2016 and penned by Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto, the NLRC partially affirmed the finding of Labor Arbiter Pablo A. Gajardo that Cynthia A. Malabunga, a former associate producer of the Network, was validly dismissed because GMA had just causes to terminate her employment and that it observed procedural due process in dismissal cases which consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

After being given ample opportunities to be heard through written explanation and the conduct of several hearings, a notice of decision dated April 28, 2014 was sent to Malabunga, wherein she was found guilty of negligence in the performance of duty, falsification of documents, and misappropriation of funds.

The Commission, quoting the Labor Code, declared that an employer may terminate the services of an employee due to either fraud or the wilful breach of trust, provided that first, the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence, and that second, there must be an act that would justify the loss of said trust and confidence.

All things being considered, the Commission ruled that it is clear that complainant used to hold a position of trust as she was tasked to handle funds and properties of the Network.  Moreover, the Commission said that complainant’s multiple offenses constitute just causes for the termination of her employment.

The Commission, in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that GMA complied with procedural due process before terminating Malabunga’s employment, confirmed that complainant was given ample opportunity to answer the charges made against her and submit evidence in her defense.

Complainant’s appeal for moral and exemplary damages was denied as there was no “clear or convincing evidence of bad faith,” nor any evidence to merit the award of exemplary damages.

advertisement

Elsewhere on GMA

advertisement